California could soon become the first state to require employers to give paid sick leave to every worker.

The proposal has passed the Assembly and is pending in the Senate. If it passes there, it would go to the desk of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has not taken a position on the bill.

But even if Schwarzenegger were to veto the measure, Democrats are likely to keep pushing it. They will almost certainly remain in control of the Legislature for years to come, and if they take back the Governor’s Office in 2010, the sick-leave proposal would be high on their agenda of bills to enact into law.

“California has a chance to be national leader,” Sara Flocks, an activist for workers rights, told me last week. She was a major player behind the passage of a similar measure in San Francisco. “Paid sick days is going to be the next huge basic-rights issue. California adopting this law would really send a message that we are able to do this and not drive business out of the state. It’s not a job killer.”

Many of the people who actually provide those jobs disagree. The National Federation of Independent Business claims that the mandate would cost business $4.6 billion directly over the first five years, and billions more in lost sales. Businesses would be forced to cut back hours or lay off employees, says the NFIB’s California director, John Kabateck. He estimates that, eventually, nearly 400,000 jobs would be lost.

“This legislation has the opposite effect on the very people it intends to help – working Californians,” he said.

At this point, it is difficult to say who is right. The bill’s supporters say the law would actually help business by making employees more productive, reducing turnover and preventing the spread of contagious disease in the workplace.

A study by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research concluded that the bill would cost employers $1.3 billion a year – more than even the employers are claiming. But the institute also says the bill would save employers $2.3 billion annually, for a net savings of $1 billion a year.

Although San Francisco voters in 2006 passed a similar measure, Proposition F – the first in the nation to require paid sick leave – the county does not have data on how much the benefit is being used or how much it has cost employers. Washington, D.C., passed a sick leave law earlier this year but it has not yet been implemented. Several other states are considering the issue but California would be the first to adopt the law if it does so this year.

The proposal, AB 2716, would require all non-union employers to provide one hour of sick leave for every 30 hours worked, or about one day every six weeks. Employees could take the time to care for themselves, a family member or other “designated person.” They could use it for illness or preventive care, and victims of domestic violence could use the time for court appearances or other matters.

Studies show that about 40 percent of California employees, or about 5.4 million workers, don’t have paid sick leave. Supporters believe that workers covered by the proposed law would use an average of 1.7 days annually for their own needs, not counting maternity leave, and another day for family care and doctor visits.

Ultimately, though, no amount of empirical data is likely to sway the debate in the Capitol. It comes down to a philosophical question: Should government require employers to provide a package of health and welfare benefits to their workers, or should the matter be left to each company to decide based on its own needs and resources?

California already has one of the highest minimum wages in the country; in 2004, it became the first state to offer workers six weeks of paid leave to care for sick family members. Not surprisingly, people like those policies and want more of the same.

A poll last year by the UCLA Institute for Research on Labor and Employment found that 88 percent of Californians agreed that everyone should be guaranteed at least seven paid sick days a year. The idea was favored by 94 percent of Democrats, 88 percent of independents and 76 percent of Republicans.

If the idea is that popular with the public, perhaps supporters should consider making the benefit an insurance program financed by workers, in the same way that family leave is funded now.

Supporters say the sick-leave program would cost less than $7 per week per employee covered. That’s less than 20 cents an hour for a full-time worker. Employers might still oppose such a policy, just as they did family leave, on the grounds that the program would encourage workers to take time off. And some workers might see the premium as a subsidy from the healthy to the sick, or from those who are willing to work while ill to those who are not.

But an employee-financed system would overcome most of the economic objections to the idea. And it might just prove to be a good way to merge the ideas of personal responsibility and the social safety net.

Join the Conversation

We invite you to use our commenting platform to engage in insightful conversations about issues in our community. Although we do not pre-screen comments, we reserve the right at all times to remove any information or materials that are unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable to us, and to disclose any information necessary to satisfy the law, regulation, or government request. We might permanently block any user who abuses these conditions.

If you see comments that you find offensive, please use the “Flag as Inappropriate” feature by hovering over the right side of the post, and pulling down on the arrow that appears. Or, contact our editors by emailing moderator@scng.com.